Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (32681)	2/13/2009 7:46:00 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

1 - A recession started in 2001. So government revenue would be expected to go down. Not true. It was a very mild recession and GDP change for 2001 was positive. Revenue change for 2001 also would've been expected to be positive. 2 - The Bush tax cuts where not finished until 2003 and passing a bill in 2003 means that you reduce taxes for 2004, not long before the point which you specify that previous tax revenue levels where reached. Highly dishonest. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut was passed in 2001 with some of the cuts being retroactive to January 2001. (The same year revenue started declining.) Federal revenue goes up pretty much every year. It went up every year under Carter and every year under Clinton. The fact that revenue went down 3 years in a row under Bush, and took until 2005 to reach 2000 levels shows how pitiful revenue was, and just how feckless your excuses for that failure are... Federal revenue even went up every year under Bush Sr. who also had a recession to deal with. But unlike his son, he didn't decimate revenue with tax cuts... SD